8 3. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 33. Article 46.1.b provides that petitions are admitted subject to the matter’s not being “pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” and Article 47.d of the Convention stipulates that the Commission will not admit a petition that “is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” In the instant case, the parties have not argued the existence of either of these inadmissibility circumstances nor can they be inferred from the proceedings. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 34. The Commission believes that at this stage in the proceeding it is not appropriate to decide whether or not the alleged violations to the detriment of the alleged victim occurred. For admissibility purposes, the IACHR must at this time resolve only whether facts are presented that, should they prove to be true, would characterize violations of the American Convention, as established in Article 47.b thereof, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless or obviously out of order, as indicated in paragraph (c) of the same article. The criterion for assessing these points is different from that required to rule on the merits of a complaint. The IACHR must perform a prima facie evaluation and determine whether the complaint forms the basis for an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the American Convention, but not establish the existence of that violation.8 35. At this stage, a summary analysis should be performed that does not entail prejudgment or an advance opinion on the merits. The Inter-American Commission’s own Rules of Procedure, by establishing an admissibility phase and another merits phase, reflects this distinction between the assessment the Inter-American Commission must perform in order to declare a petition admissible and that required to establish whether a violation attributable to the State has been committed.9 36. Neither the American Convention nor the IACHR Rules of Procedure require the petitioner to identify the specific rights that are alleged to have been violated by the State in the matter submitted to the Commission, although the petitioners may do so. It is up to the Commission, based on the system’s case law, to determine in its admissibility reports which provision of the relevant inter-American instruments is applicable and could be established to have been violated if the facts alleged are proven through sufficient evidence. 37. Given the evidence presented by the parties and the nature of the matter brought to its knowledge, the Commission deems that in the instant case it is appropriate to establish that the petitioner’s allegations regarding the failure to judicially clarify the alleged acts of torture reported, the detention, and the alleged denial of justice could characterize possible violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of that 8 See IACHR, Report No. 128/01, Case 12.367, Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser of “La Nación” Newspaper, Costa Rica, December 3, 2001, para. 50; Report No. 4/04, Petition 12.324, Rubén Luis Godoy, Argentina, February 24, 2004, para. 43; Report No. 32/07, Petition 429-05, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia et al., Chile, April 23, 2007, para. 54. 9 See IACHR, Report No. 31/03, Case 12.195, Mario Alberto Jara Oñate et al., Chile, March 7, 2003, para. 41; Report No. 4/04, Petition 12.324, Rubén Luis Godoy, Argentina, February 24, 2004, para. 43; Report No. 32/07, Petition 429-05, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia et al., Chile, April 23, 2007, para. 54; Report No. 33/07, Petition 581-05, Víctor Manuel Ancalaf LLaupe, Chile, May 2, 2007, para. 46.